|
|
#21
06-08-2005, 10:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's already been done. Cards are random. [/ QUOTE ] See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets. This is not the same, do you see why? [/ QUOTE ] Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors. 
|
|
#22
06-08-2005, 10:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
I heard that if I have 2 spades in my hand and 2 on the board after the turn, that Party will allow me to catch my flush about 19.6% of the time...
|
|
#23
06-08-2005, 10:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
Why do you make this post every few weeks?
|
|
#24
06-08-2005, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's already been done. Cards are random. [/ QUOTE ] See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets. This is not the same, do you see why? [/ QUOTE ] Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors. [/ QUOTE ] Can you provide a link for that. Only examination I have seen has been that starting hands are random. And no one doubts that, since even the most stupid would-be rigger will know that they can't get away with not having a random distribution of starting hands.
|
|
#26
06-08-2005, 11:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
Q: What's a simple method to prevent cheats that is used in every casino poker game but not used online?
A: Burn cards. That's how they rig it online, plain and simple.
|
|
#27
06-08-2005, 11:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's already been done. Cards are random. [/ QUOTE ] See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets. This is not the same, do you see why? [/ QUOTE ] Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors. [/ QUOTE ] Can you provide a link for that. Only examination I have seen has been that starting hands are random. And no one doubts that, since even the most stupid would-be rigger will know that they can't get away with not having a random distribution of starting hands. [/ QUOTE ] Unfortunately I can't, but you can probably use the search function to find it. It might be in the archives as well. I looked at it once, was convinced and moved on. There's just too much evidence to support the sites NOT rigging the deck.
|
|
#28
06-08-2005, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's already been done. Cards are random. [/ QUOTE ] See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets. This is not the same, do you see why? [/ QUOTE ] Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors. [/ QUOTE ] Can you provide a link for that. Only examination I have seen has been that starting hands are random. And no one doubts that, since even the most stupid would-be rigger will know that they can't get away with not having a random distribution of starting hands. [/ QUOTE ] Unfortunately I can't, but you can probably use the search function to find it. It might be in the archives as well. I looked at it once, was convinced and moved on. There's just too much evidence to support the sites NOT rigging the deck. [/ QUOTE ] What evidence? I have seen no compelling evidence that supports the view that they aren't rigging and of course no evidence of them doing it. Which is my point. Somewhere along the way the idea that we here at 2+2 somehow proved that it is fair crept in. And that happened without anyone actually proving it (beyond showing that starting hands are random). But that doesn't prevent members here from constantly claiming it. Which in my book make you guys as irrational as the ones claiming it it rigged.
|
|
#29
06-08-2005, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
[ QUOTE ]
I do have some preliminary data that is not quite right. [/ QUOTE ] You've been asked to show the evidence of your "claims" many times in the past and refused each and every time. I thought all was right with the world now, you have a poker tutor, etc... and you had given up on your conspiracy theories. Once again, would you care to show us the preliminary data that indicates that things are not quite right? Seriously, I think everyone here would be very interested in seeing your results, even at the preliminary phase.
|
|
#30
06-08-2005, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
[ QUOTE ]
What evidence? I have seen no compelling evidence that supports the view that they aren't rigging and of course no evidence of them doing it. Which is my point. Somewhere along the way the idea that we here at 2+2 somehow proved that it is fair crept in. And that happened without anyone actually proving it (beyond showing that starting hands are random). But that doesn't prevent members here from constantly claiming it. Which in my book make you guys as irrational as the ones claiming it it rigged. [/ QUOTE ] Well, if it were rigged, it seems as though it would be impossible for someone to make money at this. If you play any two and rely on the "rigging" to help you, you lose money. You win by playing quality cards, and playing them correctly after the flop. The thing is, if 10 people are sitting at a table, and 9 of them are playing any 2 cards, while 1 is playing only good cards, chances are that one of the 9 will hit exactly the right cards he needs. But it won't be the same one every time! Good players will always, in any setting, suffer far more bad beats than they will give to other players; the reason is that they know what cards to throw away before the flop, and when to quit afterward. They don't rely on miracle turns and rivers. The nature of the fish is to play too many hands, and to go too far with them. This results in an inordinate number of suckouts; I can't tell you how many times I've folded a hand that would have been a monster if I'd stuck with it. And this is true both live and online. No, it's not direct evidence, but until someone shows me a statistically significant sample that demonstrates any form of rigging, I have no reason to believe it is rigged and will act accordingly. -Mike
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
